G/SPS/GEN/1907   
20 May 2021 
(21-4230) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
IMPORT RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY ECUADOR ON GRAPES AND ONIONS  
(NO. 498) 
COMMUNICATION FROM PERU 
The following communication, received on 25 March  2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru. 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Peru would like to present to WTO Members its trade concern with respect to the restrictive 
measures applied by Ecuador on the reopening of access for grapes and onions from Peru.  
2.  In 2015, Ecuador closed the market to Peruvian grapes , on the basis of  three  notifications, which 
indicated the need for Peru to develop an action plan to mitigate the risk of contamination due to 
the presence of pesticides that exce eded the maximum  levels established in that market .1 This action 
was taken despite the exi stence o f the "National Plan for Surveillance and Control of Pollutants in 
Primary Sector Production ", Resolution DAJ-20133EC -0201.0096, which established actions to be 
implemented by the Ecuadorian health authority in cases such as this one, such as, for example,  the 
performance  of stricter sampling on the basis of  consecutive shipments from a single provider 
(paragraphs  14.4.3 and 5.1 of Annex  1.1 of this Resolution ). However, Ecuador, proceeded directly 
with the closure of the market . 
3.  Similarly , in 2016, Ecuador closed the market to exports of Peruvian onions, indicating, once 
again, the need to develop an action plan to mitigate the risk of contamination, without implementing 
more stringent sampling2 and/or other actions established in the Resolut ion that was  in force that 
year. 
4.  It is important to highlight that the legislation empowering the Ecuadorian health authority to 
require an "action plan" is Resolution No.  0064 of the Ecuadorian Agency for Phytosanitary and 
Animal Health Regulation and Con trol (AGROCALIDAD) , which has only been in force since 2017, 
which was two years and one year after the closure of the market to grapes and onions, respectively , 
thus violating  paragraph 1(c) of Annex C and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement, as more informati on 
was required than necessary . 
5.  While Peru recognizes the  legitimate objective of protecting health established in Article 5 of the 
SPS Agreement, it considers that the actions taken by Ecuador  were disproportionate, as corrective 
actions were not followed up and the most stringent sampling was not carried out , in order to 
safeguard public health, as established in its national legislation.  Ecuador therefore could violate 
paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, given that no attempt has been made to minimize 
negative trade effects . 
6.  Furthermore , it should be noted that, unlike Resolution DAJ-20133EC -0201.0096 , which was 
notified to this Committee in document  G/SPS/N/ECU/132, AGROCALIDAD Resolution  No. 0064 of 
2017 was not notified  in accordance with  Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, desp ite the 
 
1 Official Circular  MAGAP -DE/AGROCALIDAD -2015-000792 -OF, Official Circular  MAGAP -
DE/AGROCALIDAD -2015-000793 -OF and Official Circular MAGAP -DE/AGROCALIDAD -2015-000831 -OF. 
2 Official Circular MAGAP -DE/AGROCALIDAD -2014-000600 -OF, Official Circular  MAGAP -
DE/AGRO CALIDAD -2015-000131 -OF, Official Circular  MAGAP -CIA-AGROCALIDAD -2015-001835 -OF. G/SPS/GEN/1907  
 
- 2 - 
 
  fact that this measure establishes additional requirements that have an impact on the trade of other 
Members. We regret that Ecuador has not provided a reasonable period of time for Members of this 
Committee to submit their comments and to ensure p redictability in trade . 
7.  Moreover, Peru recalls that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Annex C and Article 8 of the 
SPS Agreement, sanitary and phytosanitary procedures must be addressed and concluded without 
undue delay , with the provision of information to the interested Party and with requirements that  
are limited to what is reasonable and necessary. However, various meetings were held and repeated 
communications were submitted  with the corrective measures requested between August 2014 and 
November 2019.3 Yet no re sponse was received  from Ecuador regarding  the actions that we took as 
a country to find a technical solution . 
8.  This lack of respect furthermore contravenes the Guidelines for the Exchange of Information 
Between Countries on Rejections of Import ed Food4, approved by Codex Alimentarius, particularly 
with regard to the identification of the food concerned, importation details , and details of the 
rejection decision  and of the measures adopted . 
9.  In this context, we are concerned by the fact that Ecuador stated that it was only in June  2018 
that Peru responded regarding the required action plan, since, in accordance with  the 
aforementioned communications, we addressed the request by the Ecuadorian authorities  in a timely 
manner , and did not receive  a reply.5 However, Ecuador submitted an unscheduled request for an 
inspection visit , which was conducted in February 2020 , and the inspection report was sent to Peru 
after seven months . These actions tak en by Ecuador are evidence of the creation of undue delays  
that stall access  for Peruvian products to the Ecuadorian market.  
10.  Peru regrets that, despite having fulfilled all the requirements imposed  by Ecuador in order to 
re-establish access, the restrictions on access to the Ecuadorian market for Peruvian grapes and 
onions remain in force, with no technical justification provided, th us violating Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of 
the SPS Agreement.  
11.  Furthermore , by means of Official Circular AGR-AGROCALIDAD/CIA -2021-000238 -OF of 
18 March  2021, Ecuador stated, without sufficient technical support, and in a discriminatory manner, 
that Peruvian grapes must only be exported by sea, despite the fact that trade in the se grapes is 
conducted primarily by land, a measure which Ecuador did not apply to other neighbouring countries.  
12.  It is concerning that Ecuador systematically disregards technical agreements that were 
previously established between health authorities, and t hat it has unilaterally added further 
requirements concerning the action plan  submitted by Peru, which was not commented on at the 
time.6 
 
3 Communications submitted:  
1. OFICIO -0095-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 27 August  2014;  
2. OFICIO -0096-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 27 August  2014;  
3. OFICIO -0030-2015-MINAGRI -SENA SA-DIAIA, 16 March  2015;  
4. OFICIO -0029-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 16 March  2015;  
5. OFICIO -0079-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 June 2015;  
6. OFICIO -0149-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 24 November  2015 ;  
7. OFICIO -0151-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 December  2015; 
8. OFICIO -0152-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 December  2015;  
9. OFICIO -0029-2016-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 24 February  2016;  
10. OFICIO -0253-2016-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 3 October  2016;  
11. OFICIO -0337-2016-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 20 December  2016;  
12. OFICIO -0025-2017-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 January  2017;  
13. OFICIO -0076-2017-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 7 February  2017;  
14. OFICIO -0378-2018-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 18 June 2018;  
15. OFICIO -0389-2018-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 2 July 2018;  
16. OFICIO -0499-2018-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 19 September  2018;  
17. OFICIO -0319-2019-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 16 April 2019;  
18. OFICIO -0320-2019-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 22 April 2019;  
19. OFICIO -0446-2019-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 30 October  2019.  
4 CAC/GL 25 -1997.  
5 Official Circular  AGR-AGROCALIDAD/DE -2020-001220 -OF. 
6 CARTA -0167-2020-MIDAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA and CARTA -0014-2021-MIDAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA.  G/SPS/GEN/1907  
 
- 3 - 
 
  13.  The measures applied by Ecuador have caused damage to exports of Peruvian grapes amounting 
to around USD 6.6 million,  and USD 500 million for exports of Peruvian onions.  It is important to 
underscore that trade in Peruvian grapes with the world totals USD 811 million, with entry to 
73 markets  at present , and with an average an nual growth of 4% in the past five years. Trade in 
Peruvian onions with the world amount s to USD 85 million, with entry  to 24 markets at present, and 
with an average annual growth of 7.8% in the past five years.  
14.  Considering that the measures applied by Ecuador are dis criminatory and violate Articles  2, 5, 
7, 8, An nex B and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, we request Ecuador to:  
a. avoid proposing measures that violate the provisions of the SPS Agreement and the basic 
principles of the WTO;  
b. ensure that it does  not disregard t he technical agreements previously established;  
c. notify its measure and give the other WTO Members the opportunity to submit comments; 
and 
d. reopen access to the Ecuadorian market for grapes and onions from Peru.  
__________